5D Mark III Information [CR1]

[neuroanatomist]

When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way? AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?

What, exactly, should they remove from a dSLR with video that will reduce the cost of the camera? 

[Fleetie]

When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way? AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?

What, exactly, should they remove from a dSLR with video that will reduce the cost of the camera? 

Those very extensive parts of the firmware that have to do with the video functionality.
And the amortised cost of the R&D for that firmware.

:-)

[dilbert]

When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way? AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?

What, exactly, should they remove from a dSLR with video that will reduce the cost of the camera? 

The chips used for video processing, software that does the video, extra pages in the manual with information printed on them relating to video. You know, anything that contributes to the 5D2 costing more than it would if it were just for stills. Even if it makes only $0.10 difference.

[dilbert]

When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way?
I am all happy for them..getting into the cine business...but what about us...the still photographers? Two completely different disciplines in my world. We need two completely different cameras. AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?

You're whistling Dixie.

The real problem being that such a camera would now not sell well enough for Canon to make it worth their while. Reviewers would can it for not having video and just about everyone would stay away from it also because it doesn't have video and just about every other camera does.

[AprilForever]

When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way?
I am all happy for them..getting into the cine business...but what about us...the still photographers? Two completely different disciplines in my world. We need two completely different cameras. AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?

You're whistling Dixie.

The real problem being that such a camera would now not sell well enough for Canon to make it worth their while. Reviewers would can it for not having video and just about everyone would stay away from it also because it doesn't have video and just about every other camera does.

I suspect such a camera would sell well, but to a specific crowd. There are indeed those who have little use for video who want a completely stills-optimized camera... Thom Hogan has discussed this in detail on his blog... it would not be a camera for the masses. It would be a camera for the dedicated few. Within its niche, it would sell like hotcakes.

However, a bet a lot of people would have said that the X100 would have never worked...

[dilbert]

When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way?
I am all happy for them..getting into the cine business...but what about us...the still photographers? Two completely different disciplines in my world. We need two completely different cameras. AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?

You're whistling Dixie.

The real problem being that such a camera would now not sell well enough for Canon to make it worth their while. Reviewers would can it for not having video and just about everyone would stay away from it also because it doesn't have video and just about every other camera does.

I suspect such a camera would sell well, but to a specific crowd. There are indeed those who have little use for video who want a completely stills-optimized camera... Thom Hogan has discussed this in detail on his blog... it would not be a camera for the masses. It would be a camera for the dedicated few. Within its niche, it would sell like hotcakes.

All of which pushes the price up, not down, which is contrary to what the OP wanted.

[jbwise01]

It just seems to me that everyone is missing the point altogether. Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
-   to be a great professional landscape camera
-   to be a studio camera
-   to make large prints similar to 4” x 5” + film
-   making a majority of photos over 16” x 20”

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:
-   photo-journalist type work
-   wedding/event photographers
-   walk around FF camera
-   indie videographers
-   making most photos less than 16” x 20”

Please… Temper your criticism of this cameras proposed feature set. Landscapers.. come on? A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film, unless of course they really wanted to splurge and get a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system. Ok so you’re thinking maybe they get a pentax, its more affordable, yea $9,995 is really affordable. Im sure pentax is having a hard to meeting the demand for this camera!

SO again, before we criticize, let’s remember the purpose of the 5D, and know that if canon was going to make a medium format digital system (which is what everyone complaining about lack of MP is really saying it should be... for under $3k) it wouldn’t be coming with the 5D mrk III and it most likely would be a new product altogether. Funny how rumors of a medium format camera quickly followed the rumors that the 5D Mrk III wouldn’t see a MP increase this time around!

[AprilForever]

When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way?
I am all happy for them..getting into the cine business...but what about us...the still photographers? Two completely different disciplines in my world. We need two completely different cameras. AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?

You're whistling Dixie.

The real problem being that such a camera would now not sell well enough for Canon to make it worth their while. Reviewers would can it for not having video and just about everyone would stay away from it also because it doesn't have video and just about every other camera does.

I suspect such a camera would sell well, but to a specific crowd. There are indeed those who have little use for video who want a completely stills-optimized camera... Thom Hogan has discussed this in detail on his blog... it would not be a camera for the masses. It would be a camera for the dedicated few. Within its niche, it would sell like hotcakes.

All of which pushes the price up, not down, which is contrary to what the OP wanted.

Which the problem is that there is not cheap solution. I'd love a 7D with a built in grip, and a 600 F4 as a kit lens, for 900.00. This will never happen. Unfortunately, we get what we pay for. Either we lower price and lose features, or specialize and and gett awesomer gear for emptier wallets... Anyway I had forgotten the originaal intent of the post, along the lines of cheapness...

The best cheap fullframe is probably a used 1V... Otherwise, a person will have to shell out the bucks....

[funkboy]

When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way?
Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?

    I wish I was in the land of cotton, old times there are not forgotten,
    Look away, look away, look away, Dixie Land.
    In Dixie Land where I was born in, early on a frosty mornin',
    Look away, look away, look away, Dixie Land.

    Then I wish I was in Dixie, hooray! hooray!
    In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie,
    Away, away, away down South in Dixie,
    Away, away, away down South in Dixie.

[dilbert]

When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way?
I am all happy for them..getting into the cine business...but what about us...the still photographers? Two completely different disciplines in my world. We need two completely different cameras. AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?

You're whistling Dixie.

The real problem being that such a camera would now not sell well enough for Canon to make it worth their while. Reviewers would can it for not having video and just about everyone would stay away from it also because it doesn't have video and just about every other camera does.

I suspect such a camera would sell well, but to a specific crowd. There are indeed those who have little use for video who want a completely stills-optimized camera... Thom Hogan has discussed this in detail on his blog... it would not be a camera for the masses. It would be a camera for the dedicated few. Within its niche, it would sell like hotcakes.

All of which pushes the price up, not down, which is contrary to what the OP wanted.

Which the problem is that there is not cheap solution. I'd love a 7D with a built in grip, and a 600 F4 as a kit lens, for 900.00. This will never happen. Unfortunately, we get what we pay for. Either we lower price and lose features, or specialize and and gett awesomer gear for emptier wallets... Anyway I had forgotten the originaal intent of the post, along the lines of cheapness...
[/quote

Right. For a product to be cheap, it needs to be able to sell lots of units to offset the R&D plus manufacturing costs. Taking video out off a camera (or not designing it in) is not going to have a large enough negative offset to the cost to offset the smaller overall market acceptance and sales.

The best cheap fullframe is probably a used 1V... Otherwise, a person will have to shell out the bucks....

And what's the problem with that?

The best of anything is always more expensive than other offerings. Always.

[AprilForever]

When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way?
I am all happy for them..getting into the cine business...but what about us...the still photographers? Two completely different disciplines in my world. We need two completely different cameras. AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?

You're whistling Dixie.

The real problem being that such a camera would now not sell well enough for Canon to make it worth their while. Reviewers would can it for not having video and just about everyone would stay away from it also because it doesn't have video and just about every other camera does.

I suspect such a camera would sell well, but to a specific crowd. There are indeed those who have little use for video who want a completely stills-optimized camera... Thom Hogan has discussed this in detail on his blog... it would not be a camera for the masses. It would be a camera for the dedicated few. Within its niche, it would sell like hotcakes.

All of which pushes the price up, not down, which is contrary to what the OP wanted.

Which the problem is that there is not cheap solution. I'd love a 7D with a built in grip, and a 600 F4 as a kit lens, for 900.00. This will never happen. Unfortunately, we get what we pay for. Either we lower price and lose features, or specialize and and gett awesomer gear for emptier wallets... Anyway I had forgotten the originaal intent of the post, along the lines of cheapness...
[/quote

Right. For a product to be cheap, it needs to be able to sell lots of units to offset the R&D plus manufacturing costs. Taking video out off a camera (or not designing it in) is not going to have a large enough negative offset to the cost to offset the smaller overall market acceptance and sales.

The best cheap fullframe is probably a used 1V... Otherwise, a person will have to shell out the bucks....

And what's the problem with that?

The best of anything is always more expensive than other offerings. Always.

Got no problem whatsoever with that! Which is why I upgraded to a 7D from the lowly XSI. I wouldn't mind shelling out further dinero for a 7DmkII with better weather sealing, and an LCD on the grip (making it almost like a 1dMKIV, except ASP-C!). Prolly I coulnay top 2500, but I have no problem whatsoever with paying extra for extra.

You get what you pay for. Life is nearly always this way. Those who want 1DX quality and performance will just have to pay 1DX price. Those who want a baby 1Dx will have to endure what a 5DII does to them, at least for the time being. And those who want a Baby 1DX made in the future had better be prepared to be missing whatever Canon Marketing dictates must go for a cheaper FF camera...

[dilbert]

It just seems to me that everyone is missing the point altogether. Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
-   to be a great professional landscape camera
-   to be a studio camera
-   to make large prints similar to 4” x 5” + film
-   making a majority of photos over 16” x 20”

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:
-   photo-journalist type work
-   wedding/event photographers
-   walk around FF camera
-   indie videographers
-   making most photos less than 16” x 20”

How do you know this?
Do you work for Canon marketing?

[AprilForever]

It just seems to me that everyone is missing the point altogether. Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
-   to be a great professional landscape camera
-   to be a studio camera
-   to make large prints similar to 4” x 5” + film
-   making a majority of photos over 16” x 20”

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:
-   photo-journalist type work
-   wedding/event photographers
-   walk around FF camera
-   indie videographers
-   making most photos less than 16” x 20”

How do you know this?
Do you work for Canon marketing?

Maybe they were guessing? I don't own one, but the guy I work for just got one, and he is crazy about it. He is an old film guy who used a 5D mark 1 for a while, and regularly made 16x20 and larger prints with it (and they look great!).

My question would be, what camera are we to make >16x20 prints with? Should we bust out Crown Graphic 4x5's? Those old press guys really had it down for style, if nothing else, when using it!

[jrista]

It just seems to me that everyone is missing the point altogether. Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
-   to be a great professional landscape camera
-   to be a studio camera
-   to make large prints similar to 4” x 5” + film
-   making a majority of photos over 16” x 20”

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:
-   photo-journalist type work
-   wedding/event photographers
-   walk around FF camera
-   indie videographers
-   making most photos less than 16” x 20”

Please… Temper your criticism of this cameras proposed feature set. Landscapers.. come on? A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film, unless of course they really wanted to splurge and get a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system. Ok so you’re thinking maybe they get a pentax, its more affordable, yea $9,995 is really affordable. Im sure pentax is having a hard to meeting the demand for this camera!

SO again, before we criticize, let’s remember the purpose of the 5D, and know that if canon was going to make a medium format digital system (which is what everyone complaining about lack of MP is really saying it should be... for under $3k) it wouldn’t be coming with the 5D mrk III and it most likely would be a new product altogether. Funny how rumors of a medium format camera quickly followed the rumors that the 5D Mrk III wouldn’t see a MP increase this time around!

I'm sorry, but I entirely disagree here. The simple fact is that a SIGNIFICANT portion of 5D Mark II owners use it for landscape photography. I've spent years on DeviantArt.com, and more recently 1x.com and 500px.com. The sheer volume of landscape photographers who primarily or exclusively use the 5D II is astonishing! Thats not to say that its not ALSO used for studio & wedding work (I personally know people who use this camera for both purposes), and obviously its become particularly popular for cinematography. I also know (or know of) quite a few photographers who use the 5D II to support prints of huge photos in multi-foot dimensions, both landscapes and studio work.

While the 5D line certainly does not service all types of photography (its lackluster AF certainly limits it), it is one of the most popular Canon DSLR's in existence, and has a very broad range of uses. Canon can either maintain its customer base, and release a 5D III that supports everyone who already uses the 5D II (and possibly then some), or they can gimp it, narrow its range of use, and piss off an ungodly number of customers who DO use the 5D II today for your entire list of "is not" uses.

[AprilForever]

It just seems to me that everyone is missing the point altogether. Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
-   to be a great professional landscape camera
-   to be a studio camera
-   to make large prints similar to 4” x 5” + film
-   making a majority of photos over 16” x 20”

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:
-   photo-journalist type work
-   wedding/event photographers
-   walk around FF camera
-   indie videographers
-   making most photos less than 16” x 20”

Please… Temper your criticism of this cameras proposed feature set. Landscapers.. come on? A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film, unless of course they really wanted to splurge and get a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system. Ok so you’re thinking maybe they get a pentax, its more affordable, yea $9,995 is really affordable. Im sure pentax is having a hard to meeting the demand for this camera!

SO again, before we criticize, let’s remember the purpose of the 5D, and know that if canon was going to make a medium format digital system (which is what everyone complaining about lack of MP is really saying it should be... for under $3k) it wouldn’t be coming with the 5D mrk III and it most likely would be a new product altogether. Funny how rumors of a medium format camera quickly followed the rumors that the 5D Mrk III wouldn’t see a MP increase this time around!

I'm sorry, but I entirely disagree here. The simple fact is that a SIGNIFICANT portion of 5D Mark II owners use it for landscape photography. I've spent years on DeviantArt.com, and more recently 1x.com and 500px.com. The sheer volume of landscape photographers who primarily or exclusively use the 5D II is astonishing! Thats not to say that its not ALSO used for studio & wedding work (I personally know people who use this camera for both purposes), and obviously its become particularly popular for cinematography. I also know (or know of) quite a few photographers who use the 5D II to support prints of huge photos in multi-foot dimensions, both landscapes and studio work.

While the 5D line certainly does not service all types of photography (its lackluster AF certainly limits it), it is one of the most popular Canon DSLR's in existence, and has a very broad range of uses. Canon can either maintain its customer base, and release a 5D III that supports everyone who already uses the 5D II (and possibly then some), or they can gimp it, narrow its range of use, and piss off an ungodly number of customers who DO use the 5D II today for your entire list of "is not" uses.

Seems to me likewise that LOTS of people use the 5D mk II as a landscape camera... Certainly, 20x16 is a better landscape format, but seriously, how many use it?

The 7D is even a great landscape camera! I've done a few large prints with it, and they really do look great!